Evidence?

[Mister Emu]

I was asked to keep questions of evidence from the debate thread... and pointed here.

Could someone provide me with up-to-date evidences of the BoM's accuracy?

Thanks.

 

[michel]

Mr Emu; "BoM" Means what? (sorry, maybe I'm more than usually slow today)

 

[KirbyFan101]

I thought it was the "Book of Mormons" or whatever it is called.

 

[michel]

Thanks KirbyFan; try http://olivercowdery.com/texts/thom1841.htm, Mr Emu.

 

[KirbyFan101]

Thanks KirbyFan; try http://olivercowdery.com/texts/thom1841.htm, Mr Emu.

That link won't work, try this one:

http://olivercowdery.com/texts/thom1841.htm

:biglaugh:

 

[michel]

That link won't work, try this one:

http://olivercowdery.com/texts/thom1841.htm

:biglaugh:

Hehe good spot - took me a few minutes to see I had the comma in the link, by mistake.:bonk:

 

[Katzpur]

I was asked to keep questions of evidence from the debate thread... and pointed here.

Could someone provide me with up-to-date evidences of the BoM's accuracy?

Thanks.

Here is a link to one of my favorite sites. It's an enormous one, though, and you really need to know what you're looking for in order to find it! But it does address just about all of the issues you might ever run up against concerning evidence of the Book of Mormon's claims.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/ldslinks.shtml

There are others, but this is a good starting point.

Kathryn

 

[Katzpur]

Hehe good spot - took me a few minutes to see I had the comma in the link, by mistake.:bonk:

I don't actually think this kind of stuff was what Mr. Emu had in mind. I believe he was looking for something more along the lines of archeological, cultural or linguistic evidence that the Book of Mormon really is an ancient religious and secular history, as it purports to be. I provided him with one of the sites I have found to be the most useful.

Kathryn

 

[Quiddity]

Katzpur, thanks for the site....been looking for something like this for some time now. I'm sure it's important to all of us that we go to proper sources. It is quite a beefy site with enough material to keep you busy for a while. Whoever took upon a task like this would have to write a big fat book with their objections countering the points made on this site. Most people will most likely take it chunks at a time, due to time constraints in peoples everyday lives. With that said, would it not be more productive for both pro and con sides to hit the big points first? We have a life time to learn the details....which is totally cool cause that makes life more exciting for me personally.. . For example "not adding to God's Word". Not sure if there is a thread on this yet.

The Least
~Victor

 

[michel]

I don't actually think this kind of stuff was what Mr. Emu had in mind. I believe he was looking for something more along the lines of archeological, cultural or linguistic evidence that the Book of Mormon really is an ancient religious and secular history, as it purports to be. I provided him with one of the sites I have found to be the most useful.

Kathryn

I'm with you Kathryn; thanks for the link, and for puting me right - unfortunately, you'll have to wait for the fruballs, because the machine won't let me give you any.

 

[DeepShadow]

For convenience, I'm bringing Deut's references here, where we can tackle them one at a time. I'll highlight them orange as we scratch them off.

The Book of Mormon and its archaeology

< -- snip -- >

"As long as Mormons generally are willing to be fooled by (and pay for) the uninformed, uncritical drivel about archaeology and the scriptures which predominates, the few L.D.S. experts are reluctant even to be identified with the topic."

- J.L. Sorenson, Brigham Young University, 1966

< -- snip -- >

If the Book of Mormon is true, then there would be certain logical consequences:

• Studies of the blood types, facial shape, and genetic makeup of modern-day Native Americans would show that they were related closely to the ancient Israelites, and thus to present-day Jews. Some DNA evidence among a minority of Native Americans has been found that shows the likelihood of a migration of individuals from Europe and Asia Minor to America. However, their arrival date in the new world was about 10,000 BCE or earlier. Thus, the migration is unrelated to activities in the Book of Mormon. No evidence has been found for a migration during the time span that the Book discusses.
• Archeologists could go to the remains of ancient Native American towns, excavate down to the levels that were active between 600 BCE and 385 CE, and uncover evidences of Nephite or Lamanite writings, domesticated horses, old world plants, chariots, inscriptions, metal objects, etc.
  bullet Excavating the Hill Comorah should reveal countless artifacts left by the hundreds of thousands of soldiers who died there in two major battles.
  bullet One would expect names from the Book of Mormon to be present in inscriptions left by the Nephites or Lamanites. Thomas Ferguson wrote: "The important thing now is to continue the digging at an accelerated pace in order to find more inscriptions dating to Book-of-Mormon times. Eventually we should find decipherable inscriptions ... referring to some unique person, place or event in the Book of Mormon."

Quite a few forgeries have been planted and "discovered." However, no convincing evidence was ever found that has been accepted by non-Mormon archaeologists.

Thomas Stuart Ferguson:

In 1952-OCT, Ferguson, a lawyer, organized the New World Archaeological Foundation (NWAF). He was a devout believer in the LDS faith, and thus in the validity of the Book of Mormon. He reasoned that if the validity of the Book could be proven, then countless individuals would flock to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), as the true Christian church. He was convinced that the Book of Mormon was an accurate historical document and that it would be relatively easy to uncover artifacts to prove its validity. The NWAF was initially funded directly by the LDS. As each year passed, the Foundation's scientists were unable to find any evidence that would support the Book of Mormon. The LDS church reorganized the NWAF under Brigham Young University in 1960. As of 1999, it consists only of a director and assistant, active in only one excavation.

In a book review, Duwayne Anderson commented: "In 1993 Michael D. Coe, professor of anthropology at Yale University, summarized the situation by saying: 'I have seen no archaeological evidence before or since that [1973] date which would convince me that it [the Book of Mormon] is anything but a fanciful creation by an unusually gifted individual living in upstate New York in the early nineteenth century.' "

Ferguson was eventually convinced that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction, whose contents bear no relationship to the reality of Native American civilization prior to 385 CE. The NWAF "failed to find evidence to prove the Book of Mormon, and the man who organized it...ended up losing his faith in the church."

Other observations skeptical of the Book of Mormon:

• DNA evidence: Genetic and blood testing studies have found that Native Americans are related closely to the inhabitants of Siberia and not to the ancient Israelites, as the Book of Mormon states. Thomas W. Murphy, 35, is chairperson of the anthropology department at Edmonds Community College in Lynnwood, WA. He wrote a chapter in the anthology "American Apocrypha" in which he uses genetic data to discredit the Book of Mormon's claim that American Natives are heathen descendents of ancient Israelites. The essay is taken from his doctoral dissertation at the University of Washington. He faces a church disciplinary council on 2002-DEC-8 at which he may be excommunicated for his beliefs. More information. 19,20
• Finding of artifacts: "No unusual artifacts have ever been found at or around Hill Comorah." 4 No evidence of the remains of domesticated animals have been found prior to the European invasion in the late 15th century. Similarly, there is no evidence of barley or any other old world plants in North America at that time. "...Bows and arrows...were not invented in America until A.D. 1000." Although there are remains of Natives who made use of meteoric iron and native copper, there are no indications that Natives smelted metals during the time interval covered by the Book of Mormon. There are no indications of the remains of sanctuaries, temples or synagogues. One would not expect to find synagogues, because none are known to have existed in the Middle East until after the Babylonian exile - decades after after the second emigration, as described in the Book of Mormon.
• Inscriptions: Some Mormons have promoted some records and inscriptions such as the "Bat Creek Stone, the Kinderhook Plates, the Newark Stones and the Phoenician Ten Commandments." All were forgeries. 5 No names of individuals mentioned in the Book of Mormon have every been found in ancient inscriptions.
• Comments by scientific groups:
  • The National Geographic Society maintained in 1998 that: "Archeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere's past and the society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon."
  • The Smithsonian Institution prepared a form letter in 1996. It seems to have been in response to a rumor that the Smithsonian had used the Book of Mormon as an archaeological guide book. Their letter says, in part:
    • "Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book [of Mormon]."
    • "The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central and northeastern Asia."
    • "...none of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492."
    • "Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared...None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars."

- see ReligiousTolerance.org

 

[DeepShadow]

From Katzpur's link (http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#geography), here's one on the smelting of metals:

[font=Arial,Helvetica]New Evidence for Pre-Columbian Smelting of Metals![/font]
See the MIT Web page on the MIT El Manchon Archaeological Excavation in Mexico. While critics have long ridiculed Book of Mormon references to ancient metal working in the Americas, interesting evidence is accumulating. Here is an excerpt:

[font=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]In November 2000, a team of archaeologists led by Professor Dorothy Hosler from the Center for Materials Research in Archaeology and Ethnology (CMRAE) at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, began excavation of a pre-Columbian site in the remote mountains of northern Guerrero, Mexico. This site is possibly the first pre-Columbian metal smelting site ever found in Mesoamerica. Therefore it is of distinct interest to Prof. Hosler . . . who studies ancient technologies and how civilizations of the past have been affected by them. In particular interest is metallurgy, a technology rare enough to only have been invented two or three times in human history (once in the Americas). [/size][/font]

​

We anxiously await further information about this new discovery. The smelting site in Guerrero is in southern Mexico (see the location on a map). Also note the recent discovery in Peru proving use of metals before 1000 B.C. (or see the article at ABCnews.com. This discovery pushes the date of metal use in the Americas as far back as 1400 B.C.

Note that the BoM rarely mentions smelting of metals, and I consider it possible, if not likely, that most of the "swords" mentioned were obsidian-edged cleaving weapons.

 

[DeepShadow]

The connections between Native Americans and Mongoloid peoples, both DNA and facial types, are moot, because the evidence can support a number of arguments. To avoid completely derailing this thread with Hugh Nibley quotes, I discuss two of them that work well together in my thread regarding the origins of the Mulekites. Suffice it to say that I was very pleased to hear that Native Americans have Mongoloid features and ancient Siberian DNA.:bounce So let's scratch those off, too.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=203519&posted=1#post203519

 

[DeepShadow]

And it appears we'll need more evidence that the Bat-Creek Stone is a forgery. I'll leave the text unchanged for now, pending more evidence.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/smithsonian.shtml

One of the most interesting evidences of transoceanic contact between the Old and New Worlds is the Bat Creek Hebrew inscription found by a Smithsonian expedition in Tennessee in 1889. (The Bat Creek Stone and other interesting oddities of archaeology, including pre-Columbian maize in India, can be seen at the Archaeological Outliers site.) Anti-Mormon writers such as the Tanners have spent much effort trying to argue that the writing on the Bat Creek Stone is not Hebrew. However, non-LDS scholar J. Huston McCulloch has now shown that the Bat Creek inscription, once thought to be Cherokee, "fits significantly better as Paleo-Hebrew" (J. Huston McCulloch, "The Bat Creek Inscription: Cherokee or Hebrew?" Tennessee Anthropologist, Vol. 13, Fall 1988, p. 116, as cited by Matthew Roper, Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 4, 1992, p. 212). McCulloch's recent work confirms Cyrus Gordon's original hypothesis about the inscription, namely, that it was from between 70 A.D. and 135 A.D. and represented Old World writing (Science Vol. 2, May 1971, pp. 14-16, as cited by Paul R. Cheesman, BYU Studies, Vol. 13, No. 1, p. 85). Carbon-14 dated wood and brass bracelets associated with the inscription date to between A.D. 32 and A.D. 769 (Ibid., pp.107-12, 116) - definitely before Columbus. Cyrus Gordon, a respected non-LDS scholar, wrote:

[font=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]The Bat Creek Inscription is important because it is the first scientifically authenticated pre-Columbian text in an Old World script or language found in America; and, at that, in a flawless archaeological context. It proves that some Old World people not only could, but actually did, cross the Atlantic to America before the Vikings and Columbus....The discredited pre-Columbian inscriptions in Old World scripts or languages will have to be reexamined and reevaluated, each on the merits of the evidence, case by case. (Cyrus Gordon, "A Hebrew Inscription Authenticated," in Lundquist and Ricks, eds., By Study and Also by Faith, 1:71,80, as cited by Roper, op. cit.; for more on this controversial issue, see also J. Huston McCulloch, "The Bat Creek Inscription: Did Judean Refugees Escape to Tennessee?" Biblical Archaeology Review, July/August 1993, pp. 46-53, 82, and the differing view of P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., "Let's Be Serious about the Bat Creek Stone," Biblical Archaeology Review, July/August 1993, pp. 54-55, 83.)



​

[/size][/font]While critics will repeat old arguments that the Bat Creek Stone is a forgery, it is important to recognize that "there is absolutely no indication that the inscription is a forgery, in the first place, other than the circular, and therefore unscientific, argument that being Hebrew, it must surely be a fake" (J. Huston McCulloch, "The Bat Creek Stone: A Reply to Mainfort and Kwas," Tennessee Anthropologist, Vol. 18, No. 1, Spring 1993, p. 16, emphasis added, as cited by Matthew Roper, FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1997, p. 142).

 

[Quiddity]

Studies of the blood types, facial shape, and genetic makeup of modern-day Native Americans would show that they were related closely to the ancient Israelites, and thus to present-day Jews.

May I ask who did this study?

~Victor

 

[DeepShadow]

May I ask who did this study?

I'm not sure what you are asking, Victor. That section you quote was part of an introductory paragraph by Deut, and was not referring to a specific study. Nor was I referring to a specific DNA/blood type/facial study when I refuted it--I pointed out that the Book of Mormon peoples may have been of Asiatic stock after all, making the point moot.

 

[Quiddity]

I'm not sure what you are asking, Victor. That section you quote was part of an introductory paragraph by Deut, and was not referring to a specific study. Nor was I referring to a specific DNA/blood type/facial study when I refuted it--I pointed out that the Book of Mormon peoples may have been of Asiatic stock after all, making the point moot.

Ah gotcha, sorry for the misunderstanding..

~Victor

 

[DeepShadow]

Brought this up on another thread, regarding the Aztec and Mayan codices and their references to Quetzalcoatl as a corruption of Christ. Let me know if it's a little disjointed, and I'll do my best to explain the background.

Also, if the Spanish added these elements of Christianity, what would cause them to alter the Works of Ixtlilxochitl, an Aztec prince who recorded the oral history of his people, such that he would include the following elements:

--Three groups of migrants from across the water (consistent with the Book of Mormon account of Jaredites, Nephites, and Mulekites).
--The first group were called Ancient Ones, or Giants, or First Toltecs ("giants" is consistent with Book of Mormon accounts of Jaredites being extremely large).
--The second group, called the Toltecs, split into two groups who had wars between them, with dates that correspond to the accounts in the Book of Mormon.
--The third group, called the Olmecs, slew the last survivors of the Giants, and afterwards joined with the Toltecs, who became the dominant culture. Compare with the Book of Mormon, where the third group (the Mulekites) took in the last survivor of the Jaredites (Coriantumr) who died a few months later. Later the Mulekites united with the Nephites, who became the dominant culture.
(Source: Archaeology and the Book of Mormon Vol. 1, by Milton R. Hunter, p. 43)

So there are corresponding elements in the accounts that would have been unknown to the Spanish.

 

[DeepShadow]

Okay, everyone, this is the second of two "evidence-collection" threads in this forum, and in addition to this potential redundancy, it suffers from my own misplacement of debate materials due to misunderstanding another thread. Rather than post to both, I will be posting to the original thread from now on, unless someone can explain to me why we should keep both. I would invite everyone subscribed to this thread--especially Victor and Mister Emu--to comment in the other one as well. It gets a little tiresome sharing this stuff only with people who agree with me. I welcome differences of opinion.

And of course, if anyone deems any of this material worthy of debate, by all means start a debate thread! I'm always open to a (civilized) debate.

 

[pranjo]

I have read a lot of LDS literature. There are many contradictions.